SOME More updates.... THE TOP 2 SOCCER TELECAST FROM LAST WEEK... 1) ManU vs. Fulham (366K) on ESPN2 (not including ESPNDeportes) 2) ManCity vs. Sunderland (335K) on ESPN2 (ex-ESPNDeportes)
1. You gotta pay for the rights if you want to show the game 2. Would ESPN2 have shown the game or just put it on Deportes/broadband? That was the problem before - especially with 2 concurrent games. 3. Is NBC SN also a niche channel compared to ESPN? As evidenced by their meager showing on the MLS game?
I always felt like that FOX Soccer has been good and bad for the growth of soccer. I wouldn't call NBCSports a niche channel...It was revamped and re-branded this year. The channel reach is almost twice the size of FOX Soccer channel. MLS ratings have improved over FOX Soccer channel. NBC had done a great job in terms of it's presentation and how it's treating the game. As the channel sees more traction in the coming months, it will help MLS ratings as well. It would be interesting to see what MLS pulls during the summer Olympics when 5-6 games will be sandwiched around the Olympic coverage on NBCSports channel. MLS is averaging almost twice the normal viewership average for the channel. This is without any good lead-in programing or content that is pulling a decent rating. MLS is almost on island at this moment on NBCsports. The NHL and NHL playoffs are usually at different times or days. There is a lack of premium content on NBCSports. As the channel builds it's content line-up, it should help MLS ratings as well. But, at this moment, NBCSports is by far a better alternative for MLS vs. FOX soccer. FOX Soccer has hit a wall. This is why FOX might be forced to make a change and create a channel that will be the likes of ESPN and NBCsports (a good national reach)... As i have said before, I think FOX Soccer is going to have a hard time moving up the ladder (Distribution wise). It doesn't make sense for FOX to pay premium dollars for premium soccer content and then move the coverage to a channel with limited reach. The return on the investment is capped with limited channel distribution reach with FOX Soccer.
Niche by far. But programming is still the key. MMA events on that channel have pulled up to 1.5 mil for a telecast. Stanley Cup Finals games recently and some conference finals have pulled 2.5-3.6 million viewers per telecast. The Tour De France had some 500-850K mornings for some long telecats, some college football has had 500-900K. So yeah, it's niche, but available enough for at least 3.6 million average viewers for one 3 hour block.
It has twice the reach. So does it have twice the ratings? That's what should be expected, no? The sonofthebronx site is down, but according to this post and given twice the reach of NBC SN (80m vs 40m): BigSoccer - View Single Post - MLS TV Ratings-ESPN, GALA, FSC So we should be expecting an average of 150k viewers by May That's the whole point of why you buy premium content and put it on a channel with limited reach. The point is to use the content to expand the reach. ESPN has done it with 2 and U and they're doing it now with ESPN3. That's why the NCAA tournament is on partly Tru TV. And it's worked. FSC as a niche channel has added 8m households in the past few years and they have more games on more channels at more times for soccer fans to watch. That's all positive if you ask me. MLS got an upgrade by jumping to NBCSN, but we'll see what happens when the ESPN deal is up. Then again - maybe national TV ratings for MLS don't matter as much as we seem to think it does.
Telemundo only got an 0.6% overnight rating in the 18-49 demographic for Chivas vs Club America. Waiting for the final data, but don't expect anything good.
For the weekend of April 7-8: Telemundo drew 1.876 million viewers (ages 2+) for the Chivas Guadalajara vs Club America Mexican superclasico, easily beating FOX Soccer's telecast of Arsenal vs Manchester City at 409,000 viewers. However, the 1.876 million viewers for Chivas Guadalajara vs Club America represents an ALL TIME LOW for that matchup on U.S. television since Nielsen starting tracking U.S. Spanish-language TV networks with the Nielsen Television Index (NTI) national general market sample (in 2006), down 56% from the peak in March 2007 (4.290 million viewers.)
Last year FSC finished with an average of 70k for all MLS games. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24631041&postcount=3 Here is a link to this years MLS numbers on NBCSN https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25455613&postcount=471
Last weeks no.1 soccer telecast was the EPL match between Arsenal vs. ManC....409k viewers watched the game on Fox Soccer....very good numbers for Fox Soccer...
just spitballing here: What happens if this Fox Sports 1/2/3 thing happens and the likes of Fuel and FSC now become all-sports channels where it's not just soccer. Would the ratings of certain soccer programming increase or decrease? You could argue that an all-sports channel that gets more subs will increase ratings just statistically. But maybe without the lead-ins that currently exist on a single channel (8:30/9/10am game to the noon game/GoalsSunday to the 2:30 game, or SSN to CL preview to CL game 1 to SDD CL game 2 to SSN to CCL to FSR) maybe there would be less of an inclination to go and find those shows strewn across multiple networks. So maybe the less popular games lose out. Just a thought.
Here is the TOP 5 telecast (English) Soccer telecast from last week: 1) Arsenal vs. ManCity @ 409K on Fox Soccer 2) Blackburn-ManUtd, 315k on ESPN2; 3) ManUtd-QueensPk, 258k on FOXSoc; 4) Sunderland-Tottenham, 219k on Espn2; 5) MLS: KC-LA, 215k on ESPN. MLS on ESPN once again failed to crack the 300K+ mark...I really don't have much too say, but Saturday afternoons might not be a great time-slot for MLS on ESPN For ESPN, we will see how the Redbulls vs. Galaxy does in few weeks on primetime on ESPN (Saturday night @ 8:00 pm EST)
The concept of "lead-in" is obsolete with only a handful of exceptions (notably ESPN U.S., which needs a good event to draw viewers into the only program that makes money on most nights: SportsCenter.) Why? Because there are too many TV channels, not to mention Internet and mobile video delivery. Also, same-day delay telecasts no longer work. Too many viewers will seek out "alternative means" (cough cough) to watch an event live even if a network were to implement 15-minute delay. (The last dinosaur in U.S. sports TV programming, D. E., was pushed out by Comcast last year.) == None of the shoulder programming on NBC Sports Network is working. NBC Sports Talk has been consistent in drawing 0.0% household ratings (less than 50,000 households.) every weeknight for the past 8 months. CNBC Sports Biz: Game On! drew an embarrassing 8000 viewers on NBC Sports Network last week (a podcast hosted by a monkey would draw more viewers than that.)
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012...rts-network-ratings-continue-to-struggle.html Even the great Bob Costas could only draw around 167,000 viewers for his debut town hall on the (NBC Sports) network. And then there's the ratings Darren Rovell is drawing for his show (CNBC Sports Biz: Game On!) According to TVSportsRatings, on February 10th, Rovell's 8,000 viewers tied for 2,452nd out of 2,544 telecasts on ad-supported national cable shows. That's in the bottom .5% of cable shows...
This is how the system runs here http://www.foxsports.com.au/tvguide Which leads to me thinking if Fuel or Speed change format in the US if the channels would do the same here. Maybe they will reformat one of them into a Fox Sports 4 which I would rather than a dedicated channel to action sports or motor racing. I don't know if this is a sign but have noticed that Speedtv (Australia) have started to air live NRL matches on a Saturday night as a overflow channel when their is 2 live matches on in the 7:30pm time slot. Fueltv has been used in similar situations in the past but Fueltv Australia is yet to go HD so offering NRL on Speed in HD is a better option for all unless you want to watch cars go round in circles
In Brazil, FOX chose to sacrifice SPEED Brasil in order to get FOX Sports Brasil onto the SKY Brasil direct-to-home satellite TV system. The SKY brand in Brazil is controlled by Globo and Liberty Media, not by NewsCorp. (NewsCorp gave up control of DIRECTV, Inc., which managed the SKY branded satellite TV services in Latin America, in order to regain control of an equity stake in NewsCorp that was held by Liberty Media. NewsCorp will live to regret that move, as it made Comcast the undisputed king of TV in the U.S. Comcast is the only one in the U.S. that owns 23 million pay TV households via cable, 1 English-language free-to-air network in NBC, 1 Spanish-language free-to-air network in Telemundo, and dozens of pay TV channels in English and Spanish.) SPEED Brasil is still around, but is now a crippled service without any satellite TV clearance. == In the U.S., NewsCorp is facing a number of issues: 1. NASCAR wants a partner that will run a 24/7 channel dedicated to NASCAR. SPEED, as it exists now, carries Formula 1 among other events. NASCAR does NOT like having to share SPEED with other motorsports entities. NASCAR has the option of going with another partner, i.e. Turner Sports (Time Warner) or Comcast (NBC Sports Group) if NASCAR cannot convince FOX to turn SPEED into NASCAR TV in 2014. 2. FOX Soccer might not be able to hold onto the English Premier League if Qatar Media were to make its move. Comcast is talking to Qatar Media regarding a partnership as well.
wow you have a Speed and a Fuel too in addition to a Fox Sports 1/2/3 and a Fox Sports "Footy" for AFL. Talk about a monopoly
ESPN2 only drew 128,000 average viewers for Man City vs West Brom on Wednesday. Not a surprise considering the blowout. FOX Soccer should have drawn more than that for Wigan vs Man Utd. Any less than 200,000 would be a disappointment. Man Utd is still THE BRAND of choice among English-speaking soccer consumers in the U.S. Can't imagine GOLTV got more than 100,000 for either Dortmund vs Bayern Munich or Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid. Too many matches available on too many channels on a workday.
If ESPN has the 1st choice of midweek games why did they take City over United given that United are a draw and City aren't? Didn't ESPN and City sign a marketing deal about year in a half? Did that deal come into play why ESPN picked the City game over the United to broadcast?
ESPN was required to use the 1st pick to take Fulham vs Chelsea because it was scheduled for Monday night at 2000 London Time. For a midweek round (excluding "Boxing Day"), ESPN, Inc. had picks 1, 4, 5, 8, 9. FOX Soccer had picks 2, 3, 6, 7, 10. The "draft" likely went as follows: ESPN - Fulham vs Chelsea FOX - Wigan vs Man Utd FOX - Liverpool vs Blackburn ESPN - Man City vs West Brom ESPN - Wolves vs Arsenal FOX - Newcastle vs Bolton FOX - QPR vs Swansea ESPN - Tottenham vs Norwich ESPN - Everton vs Sunderland FOX - Stoke vs Aston Villa
Tottenham is good. Why do you think their game against Norwich City would be less desirable than Queens Park Rangers-Swansea City when all three clubs other than Tottenham are newly promoted?
Time slot conflict. FOX took Newcastle vs Bolton for Monday at 10am ET presumably because Newcastle is in form and Bolton is fighting to stay up. Makes more sense if picks 6-10 were the following instead: FOX - Newcastle vs Bolton (Monday 10am ET) FOX - Stoke vs Aston Villa (Monday 12:30pm ET) ESPN - Tottenham vs Norwich (Monday 10am ET) ESPN - Everton vs Sunderland (Monday 10am ET) FOX - QPR vs Swansea (Wednesday 3pm ET)
Last week's TOP 2 telecasts... 1) Tottenham-Chelsea FA Cup semi (338K) 2) ManUtd-Aston Villa (335K) on @FOXSoccer are 1-2 most-watched Engl-lang. matches last week. I will update if i get some more info on the rest of the TOP 5
126/139K for Union vs Crew There was an article in the tv ratings thread in the MLS forum that had these numbers. Also, there are some ratings from the Barcelona game on ESPN.